Talk:Scouting in Greater Glasgow

Merge here of 1st Glasgow Scout Group

• Agree, unless a great deal more material is added linked to the only claim of notability that this article has, i.e. that it is the first. --Bduke 11:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge completed, although an separate article on the group does have much future potential. Orchid Righteous 04:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ISBN

Canb someone kindly fix the ISBN? Rich Farmbrough 13:51 23 August 2006 (GMT).

Merger of 28th Glasgow (Giffnock) Scout Group

• Support - non-notable local Scout group. --jergen 08:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - large scout troop and a wealth of information in article. Much more information to be added. Scouting in Greater Glasgow page will get jumbled with the amount of Information planned or this page (and will be split apart at a later date). --sheeldz 10.01, 7 February 2007 (GMT)
• Comment. I remain neutral at this point, as I explained on my talk page. However, I have to say that much of this "wealth of information" is just not encyclopedic and would not last long if merged into this Area article. These are some of the things that are not encyclopedic:- when sections meet, when you camp, names of patrols, numbers and names of leaders (unless they are notable in some other way), and much else. I'm not even sure about the Hess reference, although it might be added to the article on him. --Bduke 10:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - the only thing that is really notable over any other Scout Group in the UK is the fact that Rudolf Hess was held for a short time in the Scout Hall. Wikipedia articles are not about meeting times of sections or jumble sales. Horus Kol 12:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - References are being cited, sections are being modified to removed non encyclopedic information and pictures of events and items (Lord Badden Powell's letter to the troop, the minutes of the meeting to start the troop etc) are being researched and will be uploaded when available. sheeldz 12.58 7 February 2007 (GMT)

I'm sorry, but information on your meeting times is not encyclopaedic... neither are camps or international activities - you may be a fairly active Scout Group, but this does not make you notable. I restate - there is not much in this article that seperates this Group as notable over any other Group in the UK.Horus Kol 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per sheeldz group is notable - the article just needs to be tidied. Is this the aright place for this AfD discussion?Albatross2147 14:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is not an AfD discussion. We are discussing the merge proposal, an entirely different proposal. It does not just need tidying. It needs a whole lot of non-notable material removing as my comment above and as per Horus Kol above. It needs sources. Let us wait to see whether sheeldz finds them. --Bduke 21:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Aded historic information about notability of the troop. More detail about troop's national and regional succsses will be uploaded as more information is made available. --sheeldz 01.16 9th February 2007 (GMT)
• I'm still not sure of the notability of this troop over and above other troops... but i did some copy-editing in the history section anyway, because some of that information should be retained regardless of the merge decision. However, my main objections are as follows:

• The troop started in 1912 - 5 years after Scouting...
• Many troops have received letters or personal visits from Baden-Powell - he was very keen to provide direct support to the troops.
• All troops were adversely affected by both wars - many troops were involved as coastwatchers and airspotters
• Sea Scouts?
• Break-ins and fire - unfortunately this is all too common with Scout huts...
• Many groups have very active international programmes

About the only thing that makes this notable is that their hut (which was at the time commandeered by the Home Guard) hosted Rudolf Hess for what was likely only one night before he would have been taken away to a more secure location. I'm sorry, Sheeldz, but as it stands, this merger should still go ahead. Horus Kol 12:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is not about the fact the troop started 5 years after, but that it is still active. With delcining troop numbers, surely this is notable? Having a copy of the letter here though is notable, and I think it should stay when the merge happens, along with the other histroical images (letter of minutes, county flags). Fair point about the war. Sea Scouts were a part of the troop. The 29th Glasgow Sea Scouts still are active today. The notability of the International section is the Ukrainian Scottish Experience, which actively is helping Ukrainian boys gain a scouting association, with the Ukrainian Ambassador actively supporting it, not in the number of International Friends. Though, I do take the points on board. It's what the discussion is for. --sheeldz 13.00, 9th February 2007 (GMT)

• We still have the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Reading Scout Groups, all started within the first five years... that is not notable.
• I questioned Sea Scouts, because 400 of the 10,000 Groups in the UK are Sea Scouts - not notable
• I accept that the letter and the Ukrainian experience are likely notable - but not sufficient to warrant an article on the group... A section in the Scouting in Greater Glasgow would be more appropriate.

I am sorry about this - we all think that our Unit/Group/District is the most active, exciting, scouty-type organisation, but the truth is, with 10,000 Scout Groups across the UK, there has to be something especially notable... Horus Kol 14:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What would you deem as notable? I don't mind it being merged, I just think that there is alot of pertinent information about a troop that will be lost when it is merged. --sheeldz 9 February 2007 (GMT)

As I said in my last post - the letter, the Ukrainian experience, and the Hess fact would be notable - the other information you have in the article may be pertinent, but it isn't encyclopaedic or notable. Horus Kol 17:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Since there has been no movement on either article, I restructured the Scouting in Greater Glasgow article and now include the notable information about the 28th Glasgow Scout Group in the area article. I would now recommend the 28th Glasgow (Giffnock) Scout Group for deletion. Horus Kol 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support merge. Horus Kol is correct. He has moved the only items that are notable, so the merge should go ahead. Do not put up for deletion. Just change it to a redirect and change the Troop article redirect as well to avoid a double redirect. To the author, this is probably the best article on a Group that I have read. It is interesting, but unfortunately it is not notable enough. Sorry, but it would not survive AfD. --Bduke 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I thought the article was interesting. I think there is more that is notable that could be merged. I appreciate we can't have every troop with an article but this seems at least as interesting as many schools, why not keep? I don't feel very strongly one way or the other though.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected the 28th Glasgow (Giffnock) Scout Group to the Scouting in Greater Glasgow article after moving notable information to the main article. Horus Kol 08:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)